The American Library Association [ALA] claims a YouTube video was responsible for the Benghazi attack. Yet the video had absolutely nothing to do with the attack. Instead its use supports Islamist efforts to use blasphemy laws to silence the free speech of those speaking out about Islam from a different point of view than the Islamists. ALA now evidences agreement with that anti-free speech goal.

Last week, the American Library Association (ALA) joined an amicus brief calling for reconsideration of a 9th circuit court decision in Garcia v. Google, case where actress Cindy Sue Garcia sued Google for not removing a YouTube video in which she appears. Garcia appears for five seconds in “Innocence of Muslims,” the radical anti-Islamic video that fueled the attack on the American embassy in Benghazi. The video was uploaded on YouTube, exposing Garcia to threats and hate mail. Garcia did not know that her five second performance would be used in a controversial video.

ALA Policy Silencing Impromptu Prayer at ALA Meetings

By the way, at ALA's latest annual conference, it passed a policy silencing prayer at ALA meetings in response to a Jewish ALA member saying a quick prayer over other ALA members who had just died:

As former ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon said, "When Mr. Friedman intoned the Jewish mourner's 'Kaddish' after the sudden deaths of 2 Councilors, I was highly indignant and walked out. It never should have been allowed and before the second incident I begged Mr. Friedman not to repeat the prayer-at least on Council floor." Source: ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon.

Anyone is free to pray at any time, anywhere. What people are not free to do is to force others to participate in their prayers, which is what happens when one prays aloud. If Mr. Friedman wished to offer a prayer in his own particular religious format, he has a temple or synagogue in which to do so. An ALA meeting is not a religious service, & if Mr. Friedman wished to express his sadness over the deaths of the councilors there, he's free to do so in a non-religious way. Source: Sherry Rhodes.

So the self-arrogated free speech police who claim it violates free speech to keep children from inappropriate material and decry "banned books" think one has free speech to "express sadness over the deaths of the councilors" but only "in a non-religious way," unless you go your own "temple or synagogue."

A single ALA member (ALA Councilor Ruth Gordon) was incensed at a Jewish prayer being said in a single ALA meeting and ALA has now banned such prayer. The free speech police banned free speech. Remember, ALA claims a single parent should not be allowed to "censor what others students can read" in public schools; one parent should not control an entire school. But it is okay for one person to react to Jewish prayer and cause ALA to block religious free speech ALA wide. Just another double standard.

It is right that ALA is not a religious institution and should not have official prayers or prayer times, but a colleague saying an impromptu prayer upon news of the death of another colleague is not official ALA prayer and ALA had no right to silence people in such a fashion.

ALA Censorship Double Standard; ALA Does Not Support Free Speech

What we see here is ALA censorship promoted by impromptu Jewish prayer while ALA promotes censorship of those who oppose radical Islam. All while telling communities it is censorship to block porn in public libraries and censorship to keep school children from inappropriate material.

ALA supports Islamic blasphemy laws that silence free speech, censors points of view that differ from Islamist views, and silences its own members after a Jewish man makes a quick Jewish prayer at an ALA meeting out of respect for a dead colleague. ALA does not support free speech.